Posted on 10/07/2026 6:48:14 AM PDT by Brian Griffin
The DF-1 Roscherk is a disposable jet-powered interceptor. It is capable of both kinetic interception of targets and interception using a mounted warhead
(Excerpt) Read more at tass.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Kamikaze by remote control.
Only now the person acting as the pilot can be reused in the next mission.
Much more efficient and cost-effective than the original Japanese version.
The estimated cost of the DF‑1 Roscherk is $40,000-$100,000. It intercepts unmanned drones typically worth much less than that. Japanese kamikazes were deployed against much more valuable surface ships.
still, the question remains as to the cost benefit of this interceptor vs the cost benefit of the drones it will hunt ...
ABOUT 300 MPH
ABOUT 300 MPH
SPEED OF A TOP FUEL DRAGSTER AT THE FINISH LINE
It will be really interesting to see how drone and interceptor costs will continue to escalate due to the rapid technological arms race we are seeing in Ukraine.
- Drones and other loitering munitions will continue to require ever increasing sophistication to penetrate evolving defenses.
- At the same time, drone interceptors must also continuously advance to neutralize faster, more evasive threats (such as the new Russian jet-powered drones outpacing legacy Ukrainian propeller-driven interceptors). This morning I saw a story of Ukraine putting AI-controlled guns on its bridges.
Ironically, this development trajectory may continue and even (and this is funny) result in these unmanned platforms eventually converging with (1) traditional, high-cost cruise missiles and (2) surface-to-air missile systems.
Where the ‘cheap’ drones and interceptors keep gaining function until they eventually develop into ‘not-so-cheap’ cruise missiles and SAMs.
Ultimately, in the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the financial utility of these weapons is asymmetric.
- A drone’s true cost-effectiveness is best measured by the strategic value of the target it destroys.
- An interceptor’s value is defined by the critical asset it protects.
So, I expect for both Ukraine and Russia to continue increasing the functional gains of their weapons and interceptors, until a year or so from now (given how quickly they have been evolving) the ‘drones’ are basically relatively advanced cruise missiles that only have the advantage of being produced en masse.
We are already seeing this with the Russian Geran-5, which although having the name ‘Geran’ looks very different from earlier variants (that were basically evolutions of Iranian Shahid drones). The Geran-5 looks like a small cruise misssile rather than a winged drone.
The US is also doing something similar with money being spent on developing cruise missiles that are effective but also (relatively) cheap and mass-produced. The FAMM program has several competing designs.
Back to the future gents.
When talking about the cost of the missile versus the cost of the drone, it isn’t always about the cost of the drone, but the cost of the target the drone was going to destroy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.